Obama Admin’s Bold Transpo Plan Leaves Funding Question to Congress

The president’s six-year transportation plan [PDF], included as part of the administration’s FY2012 budget proposal, weighs in at a hefty $556 billion and lays out several policy reforms that, if enacted, could help the nation transition to a more multi-modal, less oil-dependent transportation system.

The plan is a blueprint that Congress can use as a basis for its transportation reauthorization bill. It has a lot in common with then-Transportation Committee Chair Jim Oberstar’s bill from 2009. And, like Oberstar’s bill, it leaves unanswered the question of how to fund transportation investments. This time, however, it comes in the midst of an all-out Republican war on deficit spending.

How much of this plan will survive the GOP cutting machine is anyone’s guess. There’s a lot in the president’s proposal that’s worth saving. Some notable elements:

Transit fundingis going up by 127 percent, while funding for roads and bridges is getting a 48 percent increase. That represents a significant shift in the highways-to-transit ratio, which will go from an 80-20 split to a 74-26 split.

The Highway Trust Fundis getting a long-overdue name change. The new Transportation Trust Fund will now have four accounts – the traditional highways and mass transit accounts and also new accounts for passenger rail and an infrastructure bank.

Some advocates are disappointed that the proposed infrastructure bank will be housed at DOT and not be formed as an independent entity, as many had hoped. Still, the shift to more discretionary, competitive grants is a huge victory for reformers.

The consolidation of 55 road programs into five means there will no longer be separate pots of money for bridges, for example, or trucker rest areas, according to Undersecretary Roy Kienitz. That money will be rolled into a larger pot of funding for highways that states and local governments will compete for. The five programs will be: the National Highway Program, Highway Safety Improvement, Livable Communities, Federal Allocation and Research, Technology, and Education.

The TIFIAloan program will go from a $120 million allocation to $450 million; TIGER, which has given out $2.1 billion in grants so far, will get $2 billion the first year in the president’s proposal.

The funding for livability programs – $28 billion over six years – will include bike and pedestrian improvements, but allocation decisions rest with the states.

While the new bill doesn’t have a line item for a new national freight policy or a new office overseeing freight movement, Kienitz said freight programs got the lion’s share of TIGER grants (pun not intended, I think) and will be well-positioned to get money from the infrastructure bank.

Amtrak funding will be split into two accounts: one for state of good repair and one for new system development.

In a briefing at the DOT with reporters today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood reiterated that transportation has historically been a bipartisan issue and he expects Congress will be unanimous in wanting to pass this bill, as it will create jobs in their districts. But this bill is falling into a unique political environment.

First, the House is an earmark-free zone now. A massive transportation bill was easier to vote for when lawmakers could point to specific projects in their districts that would be included. Now that their districts will have to compete for money, it might be a far harder sell. When asked about that, LaHood simply said, “We’re gonna find out.”

Second, the Republican scissorhands that control Congress, with their single-minded determination to cut spending, are sure to have a harsh response to a half-trillion dollar proposal that has no real revenue stream attached to it.

Indeed, LaHood said the administration plans to spend no more than it brings in, but they don’t actually have a plan for accomplishing that goal. He said he’d leave it to Congress to work out the revenue part. DOT officials admit it is a “non-trivial” amount of money to look for. Meanwhile, he stands by the decision not to raise the gas tax while unemployment is still high.

As the White House rolls out this budget proposal, based on input administration officials collected in six listening sessions around the country, the House Transportation Committee is holding its own listening sessions. Today it held the first two, both in West Virginia, where lawmakers heard from contractors and highway authorities about the need for a new bill.

When asked how he planned to sell a rural-oriented Congress on the bigger slice of the pie for transit, LaHood said some of that transit money will be for rural areas, not just big cities. He wants to make sure rural people who can’t or don’t drive have access to transportation “so that rural America is not left out.”

One-half $trillion is miniscule compared to climate change costs and the terrific wastes of transportation systems based on cars. Unfortunately, net-zero transport and transit have yet to appear on the radar as the future of human mobility.

What if climate change was natural. Just what if????? So much for all your plans and guilt and hype. If you look at Al Gore’s movie…he points to a very long line graph, if one looks closer you see the temperature raises or declines before the CO2 levels. Infact temperature leads CO2 by as much as 600 years or more.

Here in the SF Bay Area, Caltrain has a $30 million deficit in a @102 million budget, which means it has to cut service drastically. SF’s Muni system has 707,459 boardings every weekday and has a $21 million deficit. Transit systems all over the country are in similar trouble. If that $53 million was distributed to them it would be a big help, instead of going for a boondoggle that, if US taxpayers are lucky, will never be built.

rlb

“53 billion dollars for High Speed Rail”

That’s what they’re calling it, but it’s really just Passenger Rail. Read about it, and if you have, acknowledge you have with knowledgeable statements.
There are three categories: Core Exress, Regional, Emerging. The lower two of those will be ‘cheap’ to implement.
53 billion dollars to connect 80% of the population to rail transportation is a very sound investment.

“Yes, $53 billion is nontrivial for smaller entities than the federal government.”

“Smaller entities”! Is that techno-speak for The Little People?

gecko

“The great thing about science is that it still works when you don’t believe in it.”

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist, science communicator, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, and a Research Associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. He is the host the educational science television show NOVA scienceNOW on PBS, and has been a frequent guest on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Jeopardy!.

I really don’t get why one would debate 53 billion on any type of rail update. How does anyone expect US economy to stay no. 1 when our infrastructure is so obsolete? When the dumbest MBA program teaches the importance of infrastructure for logistics and therefore for investment decisions…

I read yesterday that in 2008 France invested 13 billion into high speed rail upgrades they already had for over a decade now. I have not looked the numbers from China yet…

I would like to see those that are burning fossils fuels in their cars, pay more for the opportunity to contribute to the pulmonary disorders and epidemic asthma that snuffs out human lives. I stand at the bus stop and breath in what they provide.
-Born and Raised in Detroit

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today, both President Obama and Republican House Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp unveiled plans to pay for transportation with corporate tax reform. Few details have emerged about exactly how Camp plans to do this, but Politico has heard from Capitol Hill staffers that it would push $100 billion to $125 billion to transportation over […]

As transit fans and policy wonks digest the details of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar’s (D-MN) new proposal, one question is coming to mind: Does it change the typical 80-20 split in the percentage of funding that goes to highways versus transit? The short answer is, not really. While road programs got […]

The critical multi-year transportation bill, which lawmakers have sidelined since last summer as they’ve quarreled about how to pay for it, looks to be back on the agenda after President Obama’s pugnacious Labor Day speech, in which he called on Congress to ramp up investment in transportation. The broad outline of Obama’s plan calls for […]

On Valentine’s Day, President Obama’s heart-shaped box of chocolates to Congress will come in the form of his budget request for 2012. It will include the president’s proposal for a six-year transportation reauthorization. The FY2012 budget request comes as Congress is still wrangling over the budget for the rest of FY2011 (which, by the way, […]

Policy wonks across the capital are still poring over the 775-page bill released earlier today by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. But searching the legislation for the key topics being debated by transportation reformers reveals new details and raises new questions. The new House transportation bill brings good news for […]

A draft of the president’s full transportation bill [PDF], obtained by the semi-underground Transportation Weekly, has started floating around Beltway policy circles. This draft is more informative than the partial bill that started making the rounds last week, but it’s still undated and it’s not necessarily the final proposal. The draft bill closely follows the […]